תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

XXX. This being the case, we may justly be surprised that a person, in other respects very learned and orthodox in the main of this inquiry, could not find the general resurrection of the just, in the second verse, when he could find, in the first, the war of the English with the Dutch, of the Danes with the Swedes, of the Tartars in China, and of the Chinese in Florida, of the Portuguese with the Chastilians and a great many other things of a modern date. But let these things suffice to shew, that even under the Old Testament, eternal life was promised to believers.

*

XXXI. Our writers have distinctly answered whatever heretics have advanced to the contrary. The whole comes to this: when the apostle, Heb. viii. 6. calls the promises of the New Testament better, that may be understood in various respects if referred to eternal life, it does not regard so much the thing promised, as the plainness and certainty of the promise, which is now wrapt up in certain obscure words, sha dows and ceremonies, but distinctly proposed; does not depend on some uncertain condition, but in the fullest manner, is confirmed by the blood of the testator, as the apostle himself suggests, v. 9, 10.

XXXII. When it is said, 2 Tim. i. 10. That Christ "hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel," it cannot be understood of the first promise of eternal life, unless any shall say, that it was not made before the resurrection of Christ, which is what is here spoken of. But none will say so. The plain meaning is, that the Lord Jesus being risen from the dead, shewed to the whole world, both Jews and Gentiles to whom the gospel was preached, that he was the true author of life and immortality: namely, that on his coming forth out of the grave, the light of this truth was very widely diffused, even among those who before sat in darkness, and in the shadow of death.

XXXIII. When the same apostle affirms, that" our salvation at the first began to be spoken by the Lord," Heb. ii. 3. It is clear, he speaks of the gospel completed, and of the Messiah, the author of salvation, already exhibited; which gospel the Lord first published, with respect to the apostles, evangelists, and the other ordinary preachers that followed them. For otherwise who can deny that Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, and Mary the mother of our Lord, and the angels who proclaimed his nativity, and the aged Simeon, and John the Baptist, were preachers of salvation before the Lord? Of the fathers the apostle himself affirms, that they were

There is certainly here a most egregious blunder in the author to whom Witsius refers.

warzazioan gospelised, or that the gospel was preached unto them as well as unto us, Heb. iv. 2.

XXXIV. When it is written, Heb. ix. 8. "That the way unto the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing;" the apostle indeed intimates, that the manner of obtaining salvation was, in some measure hid, in comparison of the brighter lustre of the gos pel. For then, doubtless, the way to life was clouded with much pomp of ceremonies and figures; which being now dispelled, we behold with open face, and ardently desire, heavenly and spiritual things. But from this it no ways follows, that those, under the Old Testament, had no knowledge of salva tion, any more than it can be concluded we know nothing of our glorious state, because John says, "it doth not yet appear what we shall be," John iii. 2. We may almost in the same manner, answer the other objections advanced by our adversaries. But it is no part of our design to examine each in particular.

XXXV. Now let us proceed to the second thing, which we undertook to prove; that in Christ, and in virtue of his suretiship, the fathers of the Old Testament also obtained salvation even as we. Which Peter declares almost in so many words, Acts xv. 11. " but we believe, that, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved even as they." Where the pronoun they is to be referred to the fathers, on whose neck an insupportable yoke of ceremonies was put, as appears both from the grammatical consideration of the gender, from the connection and the force of the apostles argument. For, since zaxiv is masculine, and, the Gentiles, mentioned v. 7. is neuter, it is not so properly referred to the Gentiles, as to the fathers. And we are not here, without necessity, to have recourse to an enallage of gender. And then too, what method of commenting is it, to imagine so wide an hyperbaton, or transposition, and to bring from" verse 7. a noun, to which, after the interposition, of so many other things, a pronoun shall at length answer in eleventh verse, and which yet does not answer because, in the words immediately preceding, you may find a noun with which the pronoun in question may be very well joined? In fine, it will either be nonsense, or very insipid, if the words be so constructed. For, what manner of reasoning is it, if we suppose the apostle to have said, "The yoke of ceremonies ought not to be put on the necks of the Gentiles, because we Jews and apostles believe, that we shall be saved in the same manner as they, by the alone grace of the Lord Jesus Christ?"

For

For besides this, it was improper to propose the Gentiles, to the Jews and apostles, as a pattern of salvation, because it appears, that the contrary should be done; and we could only conclude from that position, that the apostles and Jews were not bound to circumcision, and the other ceremonies any more than the Gentiles. But that was not the thing in dispute. But according to our interpretation, the apostle argues in the strongest manner: "You ought not to put the yoke of ceremonies on the necks of the disciples, who are convert ed from among the Gentiles, because the fathers themselves, who were under that yoke, really felt the uneasiness of it, but did not find salvation in it, and yet they were saved, not in consequence of these ceremonies, but by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Neither are we, nor any of the human race, to take any other way to attain salvation. They therefore are under a mistake who tell the disciples, if you will be saved, you must be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses. To sum up the whole, then, in short, the apostle here declares three things. 1st, That the fathers were saved. 2dly, By the very same covenant that we are. 3dly, Through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: intimating likewise by all this reasoning, that there can possibly be but one way of salvation.

XXXVI. This is likewise confirmed by that famous pas sage, Heb. xiii. 8. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day and for ever." In the foregoing verse the apostle admonished them, to keep fresh in their memory "the word which their guides had spoken unto them, whose faith they should follow." Now, he gives this for the reason of that admonition, because "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever;" constantly preached by all the teach ers of the truth, believed on by all, and to be believed on by those that come after, if they will imitate the faith of their predecessors. The same doctrine therefore is always to be retained, because Christ, who was always both proposed, and believed, as the author of salvation changeth not. But the particles, yesterday, to day, and for ever, denote all the ditferences of times. Nor does yesterday here signify something of a late date, as we usually say, yesterday or lately; but all the time past: as the phrase to day, denotes the time of grace under the New Testament. For this is compared to some one present day, as chap. iii. 13. "while it is called to day ;" and chap. iv.,. again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David to day; of which 2 Cor. vi. 2. " eho, now is the accepted time, behold, now is the day of sa vation.

As

As therefore Christ is to day, under the New Testament, ac knowledged the alone author of salvation, and will be acknowledged as such for ever; so in like manner, yesterday, under the Old Testament, which day is now past, he was the same, and as such was declared and acknowledged.

XXXVII. Let us also add what we have in Heb. ix. 15. "and for this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament, that, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Where we have an open declaration, that the death of Jesus Christ was effectual for the redemption of transgressions committed under the Old Testament. For thus the apostle proceeds. He supposes that the fathers of the Old Testament were saved notwithstanding their sins, which Socinus with his followers dare not deny. He says further, that the blood of bullocks, and of goats, and consequently of all sacrifices whatever, could not really, and before the tribunal of God, expiate sin, and purify the conscience. Yet, since as he declares, without shedding of blood, there can be no remission, verse 22. he concludes, it was necessary, that the death of Christ should indeed be undergone, in order not only to the establishment of the New Testament, but by virtue of which the redemption of former sins might also be obtained. This is the genuine meaning of the sacred writer.

XXXVIII. And indeed Grotius shamefully shuffles, when to favour the Socinians, he thus writes on this place; "His death interveened for this end, that men might be delivered from those sins which generally prevailed before Christ among those called God's people." Is it really so? Would thus" the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament," denote such an action of Christ, whereby succeeding ages would abstain from the like sins as were formerly committed? God forbid we should ever pervert Scripture thus. Redemption is an expiation of sin, upon paying a ransom. Christ paid this for all the sins of his Elect, at whatever time they lived. And upon the credit of that payment, to be made at the appointed time, believers, even under the Old Testament, obtained redemption.

XXXIX. Moreover, since it is evident, that Old Testament saints were saved, it must likewise be evident that they were saved through Christ. For our Saviour himself says, John xiv. 6. "no man cometh unto the father but by me." And Peter, Acts iv. 12; "neither is there salvation in any other;

for

for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Nothing can be plainer than these words, which seem to be written as with a sunbeam. Yet the itch of contradiction has found something to say, but that something is less than nothing.

XL. Our adversaries except, that these passages should be understood of those who live under the New Testament, and therefore that both Christ and Peter speak in the present, and not in the past time, of us, and not of the Old Testament Saints; of the times when Christ was exhibited, and not of the Old Testament times. We answer, 1st, As both texts are expressed in universal terms, they are not to be limited without cause and necessity, as there is none in this case. For if salvation could be obtained formerly without Christ, equally as now through Christ, what need had we of Christ's coming? Or, what so very great matter do we obtain in Christ? 2dly, There are very solid reasons why they neither ought nor can be thus restricted. Because they who were without Christ, were strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." Eph. ii. 12. 3dly, The quibbling about the verbs being of the present time is idle, because verbs of that time, or tense, may equally refer to all times. And whatever expression had been used, whether denoting the future, or past time, there might always be room left for such cavils. Besides, no reason can be assigned why the past time should be excluded any more than the future, if that verb of the present tense is thus to be racked. If this is not false reasoning against the Supreme Being, and a childish abuse of ones genius and parts, what can be called so?

XLI. That which in the third and last place, we promised to prove, namely, that there is no other means of communion with Christ but FAITH, appears from that very noted passage of. Habakkuk, so often quoted by the Apostle, but the just shall live by HIS FAITH, or the faith of HIM, namely, of the promised Messiah, Heb. ii. 4. From which

Paul, at different times, proves our justification, who live under the New Testament, through faith. And then Moses declares concerning Abraham, "and he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness," Gen. xv. 6; which the Apostle quotes for the same purpose, Rom. iv. 3. David likewise declares the man "blessed that putteth his trust in him" (the Son) Psal. ii. 12. And Isaiah counsels

the sinner to take hold of the strength of the Lord, and thus make peace with him, Isa. xxvii. 5. But what is it to take hold of the fortress of the Lord, but to believe in the Lord?

VOL. I.

And

« הקודםהמשך »